Talk:Sydney/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Outer Business Districts

I presume that North Sydney was not included in this list originally because it is so close to the CBD, however it does deserve some mention in the urban structure section. Should the list be changed to 6 other business districts, or should we use some other wording? JPD (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackp's disruptive edits

As many of you editors on Sydney know, Jackp has been a highly disruptive editor for some months now and I think it is high time to put a stop to it. His activity includes: inserting POV statements into articles, attempting to create sections again and again which have been reverted and discussed, removing sections he does not like and outright punctuation vandalism. His edits seek to promote Sydney and Australia whilst demeaning other cities and countries. He has added the same statement to the Sydney article no less than 8 times (and I only searched for a small sample): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] He frequently removes sections he does not like from other city articles, the section removed is usually the same section he tries to insert into Sydney: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Here ([17]) he simply blanks a part of Tokyo out of frustration. He also commits sneaky vandalism through delevelling of headers: [18] [19] Here ([20]) he questions the need for Tokyo having a tourism section (because Sydney's tourism section keeps getting removed. Here ([21]) he says that NYC is not a good size (so he's going to make it a good size). He also attempts to insert the tourism section in Sydney again and again: [22] [23] [24]Very few of his edits have not been reverted. His talk page is full of people complaining about his edits but he seems to take no notice of them. What I have uncovered is only a tiny fraction of his total disruption: his edit count is over 1000. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions on his edits and whether we should take further action because we simply cannot let his disruption continue. Skinnyweed 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is beyond a joke that it hasn't seriously been attended to. Warnings have been issued plenty of times on his talk page; a stronger line has to be taken. michael ^talk 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

it was so nice for 24hours when he was blocked and there was no jack to edit. It is very frustrating. the block seemed to have no real effect. he was back to his old ways straight away. I don't actually think he is an intentional vandal, rather he just doesn't get it. --Merbabu 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu is right, he's not trying to be disruptive but appears to genuinely believe he's helping. This, I assume, is why he's not been consistently blocked. If he'd only written his POV statements once and then justified them in discussion here, we wouldn't be at this point and some of his info might have stayed. It's a pity really since he's clearly very committed. Witty lama 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I'm very committed in getting Sydney's page into shape. And what where you saying about a POV statement? I'd be happy to post it here. Jackp 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jackp, the general consensus is that the sydney page is in good shape. You are the only one who seems to disagree. People have noted that your edits sound more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia. Do you know what "peacock" terms are? FOr example "economic engine". THat means nothing. If anything at the moment Sydney's economy is the least healthy in all of australia particularly after the property boom, melbourne is only a little better - if we want to use the "economic engine" term, then it must be WA & QLD as they are raking it in due to the resources boom. --Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ALso, have you used the history tab? You can see the reasons people give for changing your work. try it and maybe you will understand.--Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is in reasonable shape. There is plenty of room for improvement, but most of Jack's edits make it worse. For a while after his block, I thought he was trying to be more reasonably, but I see he has gone back to repeatedly adding his versions without discussion. Jack, it would help if you at the very least actually bothered to understand why people disagree with you before continuing to edit the article. JPD (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine, if someone would just make an improvment, there is a lot on Sydney that could be added in, but know one seems willing, that just bugs me. Jackp 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The sections that are already there need improving. We don't need any new sections. If everyone wasn't so busy trying to deal with Jack's inappropriate additions, they might have time to make improvements. JPD (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no sections need to be added, ok then fine, I've got a few:

• Shopping (as a sub-section under "Arts and Entertainment")-Sydney tourists always engage in shopping, and it is something that makes Sydney stand out

• Architecture-No one seems to want it or consider it! Even though, Sydney has a classic architectural style, and is a classic case of old meets new.

• Tourism-Witch is a vital part of the Sydney economy, and Sydney is a tourism hub, but still no one cares!

MAYBE IF SOMEONE CARED, THEN NO TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN WASTED!!! Jackp 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, are you for real? Sometimes i think you are just joking - although i don't want to suggest you are a troll. You have raised each of these points before and people have responded to each. You say Sydney's shopping stands out. How? I've been to many big cities around the world and it is not that different. What do you suggest? Architecture - we've been through that. see above. Do you know what classical architecture is??? Sydney being a tourist centre is mentioned right at the start. It has been suggested that the economic importance of tourism be expanded in this article but no-one (yourself included) has down this so far - we are tired of removing your tourism promotion material. --Merbabu 12:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If shopping were important to tourism ("tourists always engage in it"????), there would be sources to back this up, and it could be included in economy. I don't see how shopping makes Sydney stand out, but it definitely doesn't need its own section. Architecture has been discussed before, and you still haven't listened. Same for tourism, which doesn't need a section when its importance can be described in the economy section. The main thing you don't seem to have understood yet is that this article is not about tourists! Saying noone cares is a bit ridiculous. Your sensible suggestions, like adding information on the film industry, have been acted on. Other suggestions, which most people feel would make the article worse, have been reverted, with reasons given in the edit summaries, on your talk page, and on this page. The least you could do is try to understand these reasons. JPD (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No one ever said why it shouldn't be there, they said they didn't like what I wrote (as always). No one even made an attempt to fix it. Why can't something I write be edited instead of taken out, I've added in a new version of the architecture, if you don't like it then why don't you just fix it, and this would end Jackp 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is riduclous - people have stated over and over WHY they don't like some (most?) of your changes. The reason the architecture section got removed was because it was mostly POV peacock statments, and the rest of the section was so thin that it didn't deserve a whole section. --Merbabu 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this! Can we all just move on? It is time we focus on more important things. Jackp 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you will stop your "disruptive edits"? --Merbabu 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it just doesn't matter anymore, I'm done on trying to get it through, so I think we shall all move on from this issue now Jackp 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

well, not all of your edits were over-ruled. Some were accepted. The problem was when you reinstate some edits numerous times despite a large number of people disagreeing. Just remember POV and no peacock terms. Cheers--Merbabu 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Jackp's disruption is intentional and nothing else; he has been told many, many times but he does not ceast. Skinnyweed 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure suggestions

Headings in Arts and Entertainment

Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:

1. Leave it as it is (ie no headings), possibly with some reordering for better flow. I currently prefer this option.
2. Reorganise it into separate subsections of culture.
3. Use

headings

(;headings) as Jackp suggests, but with better organisation of material.

Please add your opinions. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to split, IMHO. Nowhere else does it, and for good reason - it's just unnecessary. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to make it bold, because it is easier to read, when it isn't in bold text, it gets all jumbled. Just like Paris's "entertainment" section, it stands out so the reader knows what section they are reading! Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume those who read the article aren't either blind or retarded. Most people aren't so stupid as to fail to differentiate between the paragraphs' subjects. Don't complicate the article. michael ^talk 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complicating it, I'm making it eaiser to read, besides it looks better. Jackp 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Separating paragraphs is not a reason to use subheadings. All the features cities I can think of have 2 or 3 sections within culture. The Paris sections look really terrible.--Peta 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to agree. It does look pretty tacky. Jackp 08:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Parks and gardens

To me it seems that this subsection would be better in Geography than Culture, either as a subsection, or part of the urban structure subsection. Any other opinions? JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a paragraph under geography would suffice. It's a rather small topic with regard to the city as a whole.

I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be worked into the text - without being a seperate subsection - in Canberra info about parks is in the arts and entertianment section, which inclues all the sites of interest to locals and tourists.--Peta 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it works, although to me it doesn't quite match the heading. Some of the parks are already mentioned in the urban structure section, and I think some more would fit well there. While on the topic, is it only me that finds the "centrepiece of Sydney's wida array" sentence a bit ridiculous? JPD (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was much more ditinctive with as a sub-section. Maybe be it should go as a sub-section under Geography. Jackp 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The section has Nothing to do with gepography--Peta 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added much more info to Parks and Gardens in Sydney, and it's a little to big for it to be included under arts and entertainment, so it's gone back to having it's own sub-section. Jackp 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this much info in a summary article. We definitely don't need to describe parks such as the Chinese Gardens or RNP to that extent, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to single out Botany Bay National Park. I am still not sure how the Botanic Gardens are the "centrepiece", either. JPD (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why "Parks and Gardens" needs to be added under arts and entertianment (which has absoloutly nothing to do with parks and gardens)...It should still have it's own subsection. Jackp 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see an argument for not having it under arts and entertainment, but not for having its own subsection. JPD (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is where do we put it? The only reasonable option was giving it a sub-section under cutlure, because it can't go under geography, and there isn't anywhere else for it to go. So if it doesn't have a subsection...then where does it go? Also, why is the "further reading" section constantly removed? Jackp 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way of going about this would be that we don't put it, at least not in this form. The current section has way too much information about a relatively minor subject for a summary article such as this. It could perhaps do with a paragraph somewhere (I don't particularly care where), but it's hardly a necessity to have it at all. Rebecca 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds ok, or maybe just remove some of the parts that don't reall deserve a mention. Jackp 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LGAs

Someone above suggested that the list of LGAs in the body of the article was ugly and unnecessary, as they are listed in the template at the bottom. Does anyone agree? Alternatives that I can see include linking to a list of LGAs in Sydney, or possibly even moving the sydney regions template to that part of the article. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind them as they are - I think they're formatted nicely and helpful. I wouldn't object if they were removed though. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point JPD. I agree that the table of 40 LGAs is a bit ugly, and disrupts the flow of the article. I think it was better with them at the bottom (they were there a few days ago, but aren't now) and a link to a list of LGAs in the Governance section Mako 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the template is the best way to do it as the information should be easy to find when the idea is first encountered. Mabye a seperate article on the governance of sydney linked {{main}}, which would have the obvious list information it could discuss changing boundaries and so on. It also needs to be made abundandtly clear that this article isn't only about the area governed by SCC.--Peta 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was only starting dicussion on an issue raised by someone else. I personally don't mind the list, although a link to a Governance of Sydney would be a decent alternative. JPD (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia's Capital?

A while ago I added this into the first part of the Sydney article:

"Sydney is the Australia's focal center of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture."

Well, isn't most of that true?? I want to no what is before I add the sentence in, because I feel it should be mentioned somewhere, and the top is the most venerable for people to see (there really isn't any other places).Jackp 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms, Jack, peacock terms. The reason why that sort of sentence is not appropriate is set out in great detail up above. Please take the time to read and understand the comments people have made to your suggestions. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, we've already addressed it many times. Stop asking again and again. Do you actually read what people write let alone consider it? --Merbabu 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What about if the peacock terms are removed, eg "Sydney has Australia's largest concentration of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture, or something along those lines? Jackp 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And how would you actually prove any of these things? Rebecca 09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rebecca, i think Jack was saying there that he would remove it. But i guess the proof is what he does in the article. --Merbabu 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Finance is already in the article, but for the rest, apart from tons of books and documentaries, this is where it can be proven:

1. link title 2.link title

Jackp 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, some of that stuff is verifiable. Centre of finance, or centre of culture, those can be verifiable via public perception. Centre of education? Hardly. Centre of politics? Umm Canberra is the capital for a reason... --Sumple (Talk) 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, if you really beleive that those two links are reputable sources and not just websites to generate clickthrough revenue then you truly are a lost cause! --Steve 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove education and politics when I re-add it. Also, if Sydney isn't, then what is Australia's education capital? Jackp 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you talk about high schools, then yes the NSW selective system produces the most out of all states - see Maths Olympiad and Science Olympiads to see that NSW is a a dominant contributor to Australian representative teams. However per capita it would be ACT. With the ANU, the tertiary level is probably the same, the ANU is usually ranked higher and per capita Canberra would also be higher rated in terms of ed qualification.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is an 'education capital'? There term is meaningless --Steve 06:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, there is no proper definition, but I had to rebut anyway.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if every school or uni in australia was located in Sydney i wouldn't say "education capital" - rather just say that every school and uni is in Sydney. let the facts speak for themselves. dont fill this up with tourist brochure garbage. --Merbabu 06:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about verifying claims - it's the NATURE of the claims (whether they are true or not) that is the issue. They belong in a tourist brochure, this is an encyclopedia. I don't care if jack's hyperbole is true (it probably is) or that it is conclusively verifiable (it probably isn't), the fact is it doesn't belong here, end of F^&%*#)%* story. I cannot believe we have now spend weeks debating something that so clearly conflicts with central tennants of wikipedia. --Merbabu 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The three top unis in Australia (according to the THES) are Melbourne, ANU and Monash. So the "education capital" (if, as Steve asked, that means anything) is probably Melbourne. (I'm a UNSW graduate, so aren't blowing Melbourne's trumpet). You'd better remove culture too, unless you can find a good source backing up that claim.Mako 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i can't believe we are even giving it a discussion. There is no place for such a term even if all the superior institutions were actually in sydney. --Merbabu 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu, no offence but, why do you always have a bone to pick with everyone? We are just trying to discuss something here, is that illegal on Wikipedia. Everone is just answering the question about Australia's education capital. PLEASE LAY OFF. Jackp 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Merbabu was not picking a bone with a person but with the topic at hand - YOU are the one who made the Ad hominem attack, not him. Don't try to pass the buck. Furthermore, whenever someone says "no offence" they generally DO mean offence! Witty lama 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What education capital? There isn't one. Universities are scattered everywhere. Many regional cities are university cities. Does every single thing in Australia have to have a focal point or a capital at one particular city? You don't just live in Sydney, Jack, you live in AUSTRALIA. Things don't magically change once you pass Gosford or Campbelltown. -- Chuq 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack has already stated somewhere that he doesn't live in Sydney. Some of the completely wrong statements he make back that up. Together with the fact that he uses American spelling, I wouldn't even be sure that he lives in Australia. That might be an excuse for not understanding that there is no "education capital" of Australia, but it's not an excuse for thinking that that sort of language is acceptable in an encyclopedia. JPD (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu is right. We shouldn't have to be discussing this sort of thing again and again, when the language proposed is something that should not be in an encyclopedia full stop. Rebecca 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack "no offence" to you either, but your last comment says quite a bit about the way you use words. Ie, you use them loosely with very little thought to how they are going to be read by others. I am not picking a bone with "everyone", as you put it. Rather i am contributing to a discussion to which I am in agreement with a lot of people, whereas you appear to be in agreement with no-one. As per usual, my advice to you is to read closely what people are actually saying, and cleary there is also a need for you to think carefully about the words you use in the article. Although, to your credit, you do seem to be heeding of the advice on earlier topics (ie, the introduction).--Merbabu 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

International rankings

I really don't like this section. If information about any of these rankings is important enough, then it can go in the lead or somewhere else appropriate. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the article. There is no need to have a separate section for it. JPD (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If no further comments are made, I will remove the section. The Beta world city info is not a ranking, but a description of what sort of city it is, so can go in the lead. The other ranking could possibly go in the lead, but perhaps doesn't need to be there at all. JPD (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

In light of today's reversions from Jackp, re-adding material which it has been explained to him time and time again is inappropriate, I have blocked him for a week. I have asked him to take the time to think about and try to understand why his editing has been inappropriate, and informed him that I will block him indefinitely if he continues editing in this way after the conclusion of his block. Rebecca 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying really really hard to control myself, so i will say this with some control - that is BRILLIANT news. He has completely failed to learn the not-so-difficult art of compromise and consensus. Yet, often he has claimed he has, is quiet for a couple of days, and then comes back with a vengeance. He asked me about creating a page on architecture in Sydney and showed his (typical jack) writings. I decided to treat his intentions as good and gave him a long answer - the general jist was this needs RESEARCH and i gave him a list of topics. But there was no reply which i think is telling.--Merbabu 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom :P Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone (203.208.120.247), presumably Jackp himself, is now doing the same things all over again. Is another block justified? JPD (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That IP address is assigned to Neighbourhood Cable, an ISP that covers regional Victoria. Verify with APNIC whois search. John Dalton 11:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) More specifically, according to the 'company info' section of their website they cover the following three towns: Mildura (8,500 homes), Ballarat (32,000 homes) and Geelong (50,000 homes). John Dalton 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Should be able to narrow it down further. Each IP block is probably assigned on a subnet basis. Find a domain name close to 203.208.120.247 and get its address details out of who is. 203.208.120.247 should be in the same city and maybe even on the same phone exchange? John Dalton 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture in Sydney

Hello, I've just written a section on architecture in Sydney. I posted it on Merbabu's user talk page, because he gave me an idea for the architecture section. So after I read his ideas, I got cracking on the section. Anways, Merbabu gave it a quick read, and thought it was a good start, although he though it may beed to be re-sized, as it's a little too long. He also said that many of you mighten be pleased (he has a copy and says he'll work on it), so to be sure he said post it on the Sydney talk page, so give it a read and see what you think:

Sydney’s skyline is not characterized by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time.

Many prominent architects that are responsible for a large amount of iconic Sydney structures, such as the iconic colonial architect Francis Greenway Between 1816 and 1818, whilst still a convict, Greenway was responsible for the design and construction of the Macquarie Lighthouse on the South Head at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. His most famous works include the Hyde Park Barracks, St. James Church and the new Govermant building. Danish architect, Jorn Utzon, responsible for quite possibly the most famous Sydney structure, the contemprary Sydney Opera House which has since it’s opening in 1973 by the Queen Elizabeth, has become one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and makes Sydney’s skyline differ from many other cities due to it’s shape, which are suppose to resemble sails.

The late 1980s and early to mid 1990s resulted in a skyscraper boom in Sydney, but height restrictions limited future buildings to the height of 235 meters, to provide better views from certain buildings. The skyline is dominated by the highest, which is the Centrepoint Tower (or less more commonly the Sydney Tower) at The tower stands 305 metres above the central business district, it is located at 120 Market Street, between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets, accessible from the Pitt Street Mall, and sits upon Centrepoint (to which the tower is often referred as), an office building and shopping centre. The tower is open to the public, and is one of the most prominent tourist attractions in the city, being visible from a number of vantage points throughout town and from adjoining suburbs. The second largest at 244m is the Chifley Tower, which was completed in 1992 and is located at 2 Chifley Sqaure. Among the others are Citigroup Centre and the latter consisting predominantly of residential apartments. Sydney skyline is by far the most recognizable in Australia and is home to some of Australia's tallest skyscrapers, with 134, it has the largest skyline in Australia. The spectacular backdrop of Sydney Harbour means its real estate is amongst the most expensive in the world.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2006

This is indeed a better section, and could form the start of an architecture in Sydney article. However, that doesn't mean that it should be a section in this article. JPD (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I should also have said that even if the section does stay (and at the moment, I'd rather it didn't), the information about Centrepoint being open to the public and a tourist attraction doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have anything to do with architecture. JPD (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tourist stuff from Centrepoint. It's only claim to fame architectureally is that it is the tallest. Perhaps eventaully this should be its own page if it is good - Jack has come a long way but still a lot more work to be done. What about some other topics like federation architecture (although arguably not uniquely Sydney), suburban development (different periods, economic conditions - ie, look at the different styles from 18th century, then booming pre-WW1 federation, then post war, and now McMansions and urban fringe). Clearly this needs some research. Also, the significance of Macquarie using Francis Greenway to implement his vision of a small ordered city rather than a bedraggled prison colony for Sydney. --Merbabu 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu mentions exactly the sort of things I would like to see at Architecture in Sydney or something like that. The question is whether a summary of this material should be in this article as its own section. JPD (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm - this is getting confusing. What is best? Alshtough i think a seperate article might have legs, I don't think this would ever be a big article unless someone could come up with some major topics and link them all together. Also, there is this page Australian architectural styles - jackp won't be happy with this, but much of what could go into a sydney-specific article would be found here. It is difficult because some speific topics are already covered in specific articles - ie, Utzon controversy, Harry Seidler's impact on architecture (not just skyscrapers but he doggedly - but no single-handedly pushed us out of out conservatism and pushed modernism onto us). --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On a minor point - that Architecture in Sydney page redirects to a list of sydney skyscrapers. Should that be kept as seperate list or part of an architecture page??? --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we just left the architecture section on the Sydney page small, and have a "main article" at the top directing the reader to the new article. And about the skyscrapers in sydney, well myabe, we could merge it into the architecture page-if we create one. Jackp 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Transport

"In the years following the 2000 Olympics, CityRail's performance declined significantly."

Is that true? I don't think it is, I haven't ever herd any information about it. And also, the trnasport section is missing a few sub-sections such as "Buses" (buses are used a lot in Sydney), and the whole section looks messy without a heading (i.e. airports, trains and rails), so I think they should be subsections under "transport", although the infrastructure will look all messy and out of shape, so I think the Transport section should have it's own section. Jackp 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the MoS, in particlaur this. And to avoid us repeating ourselves again, look st some other featured cities, like Detroit or Canberra for a guide to good layout and sections that should appear in a city article.--Peta 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a featured city? Jackp 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A featured article on a city. You've been pointed to those articles many times before. Rebecca 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So is New York City a featured city, what other cities are besides Canberra, Detroit and Ann Arbor? Jackp 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured articles. Rebecca 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll for removal of 'Architecture' section

This section does not belong and does not fit into the format of a featured city article.

Keep:

Remove:

1. michael ^talk 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• An architecture section works OK in the recently featured New York City article. However all the Sydney section says is that there is no distincitve style, and then talks about a few buildings. I'm sure some of it could be incorporated into the history section, the rest really doesn't add much--Peta 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that some of the particular buildings deserve note, but not in their own distinctive section. michael ^talk 08:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Use the power of hyperlinking! I think it would suffice to say words to the effect. "Sydney does not have a dominating architecture style. None the less, some notable buildings in Sydney are <list of architectural features hyperlinked to an article on each>" Full details are only a click away for the interested reader. Hopefully make the prose more interesting than just a list of building though.

I'm not sure that Sydney is without a distinctive architectural style, just that it shares that style with London (and other former British colonies). I once toured Europe and was struck by how familiar London felt compared to the rest of Europe. The buildings, street layout and lots of other details just felt like Sydney. Maybe it's worth checking some sources to see whether this is a commonly held view, or just a personal observation. Sydney tends to have distinctive buildings rather than an overall style. From an engineering/architecture point of view Sydney has some significant buildings. By the way, here is a good reference on some of Sydney's buldings.John Dalton 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

John, you make some good points about individual buildings, however what i would like to see - whether as a section here or as a seperate article - is something covering some more general themes and how architecture developed over time. yes, this is a lot harder than just choosing some stand out buildings and writing about them seperately. The current sections only touches on these topics and with some good research good be expanded and the less important stuff (ie, heights of specific buildings) dropped. --Merbabu 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its irresponsible to simply leave it at "Sydney does not have a dominating architecture style". Very few cities have a "dominating architecture style". what we need is an expert to chart, say, the trends or styles that have influenced Sydney and which have resulted in the city that we see today. For example, Frances Greenways and subsequent classical sandstone structures; Brutalistic architecture (think UTS tower and other concrete boxes); the first waves of skyscrapers; Harry Seidler; Opera House; contemporary redevelopment of formerly industrial districts (Darling Harbour, the Rocks, etc). --Sumple (Talk) 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• It definitely needs a rewrite, and I think the current focus is wrong. While CBD buildings and the Opera House probably deserve a mention, they're hardly typical of Sydney as a whole. A better architecture section should cover victorian terraces, federation style, brick walk-ups etc. It's probably worthy of an article of its own (suitably researched and referenced of course) Mako 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, and Mako you make some good points - we need to consider styles, trends over time in a Sydney context (indeed as a reaction to the sydney context???). It's own article could be good, although if it stays here for now it gets the exposure it needs to encourage people to develop it (hopefully based on research). --Merbabu 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Something could be mentioned about the so-called "Sydney school" as well. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A good point about the article being "CBDcentric", especially in light of the article covering Sydney the city, not Sydney the LGA. Topics like Sydney's urban sprawl and "what do people live in Sydney?" are worth a mention.

Perhaps one way to approach a rewrite is to write down a list of questions that a reader might ask about architecture in Sydney? The article would then set out to answer these questions. International readers would probably be interested in knowing about the opera house and similar. An Australian or Sydneysider might be interested in housing styles. Someone with a particular interest in Architecture might be interested in the finer points and history. This points to a possible structure. An opening that talks about the "obvious". It then moves on to talk about more typical Sydney architecture. Finally a section on history, finer points and where to find further information on these finer points. John Dalton 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The other point is, would a good architecture section have a place in a top level city article? Unless the architecture of a city is pretty remarkable (eg Rome and Paris for historic reasons) - its not something I would expect to see, nor do I think it is very relvant to the reader who wants to know general stuff about Sydney. Also the bulk of Sydney, is not the CBD, it's the suburbs, all the talk so far, just focuses on the CBD.--Peta 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Gotta laugh at that one! 218 years is brief on the scale of city timelines. Rome, London, Bejing,... have building histories measured in millenia. One can hardly say that Sydney has "accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Mako's suggestion of a rewrite seems a good one. I suggest that any rewrite should have *every* statement directly referenced to a reputable source. No source, no appearance in the article, no matter how obvious it seems.John Dalton

It doesn't completly need to be re-written, just a little more detailed and extensive. The section doesn't really mention much about housing because there wasn't much info on it. A little more detail, and more about buidlings and the article should go along just fine. Jackp 07:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but now it is even more hilarious: "Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a period of time." What's the alternative to accumulating "buildings over a period of time", that Sydney burst into existence at a single point in time? Our own mini big bang!John Dalton 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey come on John, although i agree with your sentiments and note that you did make some very constructive suggestions earlier, i don't that being sarcastic about it is the best way - we got your point and agree. Yes, much of what Jack's contributed to this article has been highly questionable (and I've been one of the main reverters of his work), and indeed he is skating on thin ice in other parts of wikipedia, but at least with this time he did have a major go at it and it is, believe it or not, a major improvement at an earlier attempt. Yes, the section still falls way short of the mark, but the way to improve it is to do the research and actually make some changes. I've had a go - i hope to try again soon. Cheers --Merbabu 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Point accepted. It wasn't meant to be ridicule. I genuinely did find it funny and I can't change that. A bit like in conversation when someone comes out with a gaffe but doesn't realise it until others burst out laughing. Hopefully the gaffer (one who gaffes) will join in the laughter once the moment is over.John Dalton 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

he he, well, i am not without a sense of humour and your comments were spot on. Certainly creative ridicule, i will give you that!!!.

Taking note of your request to get on with fixing things, I'm rewritting the couple of sentences about the opera house. I've replaced the unsubstantiated claims about how great the opera house is with a reference to its proposed world heritage listing. By itself that is an objective indication of its status. There is only one building in Australia currently on the world heritage list. I've dropped the reference to QEII, that sort of info belongs in an article about the opera house. World heritage listing is more special then being opened by QEII, as lots of other things in Australia were opened by QEII. I've 'been bold'(to quote wikipedia) by jumping in and editing (based on Merbabu's invitation), so in the spirit of wikipedia, please feel free to knock my words into shape. All I ask is that all changes be backed by sources.John Dalton 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ha ha, nice work. cheers. --Merbabu 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of sensible comments about what an article on Architecture in Sydney (and hence a summary Architecture section in this article) should cover, but we still haven't really addressed the issue of whether an architecture section, no matter how well written, really needs to be in this sort of article. I tend to think that it doesn't, and that any material that should be included belongs as brief mentions in geography and/or history. JPD (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On scanning the table of contents, I agree that architecture is the odd one out. If the article was longer it could have a place, but for a shorter (and more succinct) article it grates. History, Geography, Governance, ... , Infrastructure. They mesh together in that they are orthogonal, each covering a different area. Architecture, huh, what's that doing there? Shouldn't it be part of infrastructure? A particularly significant building from the past might rate a mention in history. At most I would think architecture belongs as subheading of infrastructure.John Dalton 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Sydney

I’m very willing to create a portal on Sydney. All I need to know is whenever I go to create it, it redirects to the Australian portal, how do I change this. I've read throughly the rules on portals, the guidlines, how to make a good portal and so on, because I don't want to make the same mistake that I have on the Sydney page in the past. Jackp 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The Sydney article has been degraded significantly because of your edits. Why should this continue onto a portal? michael ^talk 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't enough quality Sydney-related content to sustain a portal of any substance, hence the redirect.--cj | talk 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in actually fact, there is tons of pages related to Sydney on Wikipedia. I'm terribly sick of you Michael, you always have something to disagree with about me and the things I tried to do. And as I said, I've learnt my leason Michael, I know what is accepted on Wikipedia and what isn't. Jackp 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, here is a list of your contributions. Have you really "learnt your lesson"? --Merbabu 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, it's not solely a question of quantity, but of quality. Portals are supposed to showcase quality content. At present, there is only one Sydney-related featured article and about 2 Sydney-related good articles. This is insufficient. The redirect to Portal:Australia was instituted because it can reasonably serve those users interested in Sydney alongside those interested in other Australia-related subjects. In any event, if there were to be subportals of Portal:Australia, the states should be first in line. With regards to the general tone of discussion here and on other talk pages, I'd advise users to avoid acrimony. --cj | talk 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Since there are several comments here about Jackp's disruptive edits, I though I would let you all know that he seems to be making a POINT on New York City – see the talk page. –Joke 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ha, ha - we have taught him well. What he is arguing on the NYC page is exactly what we spent 3-months and 100 reverts drumming into him. Perhaps jack could now remove the sub-headings from the Culture section of the NYC article (see Sydney history page over last 3months if you don't get it). --Merbabu 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing at Toronto and Montreal. --Skeezix1000 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough disruption. I have blocked Jackp indefinitely. Rebecca 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that include his IP, 203.208.120.247? --Steve 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A trace on that IP would suggest his ISP is http://www.ncable.net.au , who use dynamic IPs. Mako 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

global city and economy...

Seriously? What does being a global city have to do with economy?

From, Movie-lover93 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If the statement really were about the broad meaning of "global city", I would agree that it would be better in the lead, but looking carefully reveals that the study quoted did indeed cover only economic aspects. JPD (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

coat of arms and flag

Sydney has a coat of arms and a flag, and these are the right one: FLAG: http://www.freehomepages.com/goebel/sydney_flag.jpg

COAT OF ARMS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hs_chos_sotc_coat_of_arms_new.gif

Wanna consider adding them?

From, Movie-lover93 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This article discusses metropolitan Sydney, not the City of Sydney.--cj | talk 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I never new that, sorry. Movie-lover93 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie-lover93

Is new editor Movie-lover93 Jackp in disguise? Their contributions to this article and others ([25] [26] ) are very similar - too similar for coincidence? Jackp often edited movies including Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

That is a Jackp sock. He previously mentioned having created User:Movie-lover, which I promptly banned as a sock at the time. Jack, please find something else to do with your time. Rebecca 07:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Capital of New South Wales

Is Sydney or the City of Sydney the capital of New South Wales? — Instantnood 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Sydney, in the way that London is the capital of the U.K. and not the City of Westminster. But it's an interesting question. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

yes - i'd never thought about it. Actually, what makes a city a capital?? Is there a proclomation of a city being a capital - or is it just a name bestowed on a city where the government is based (ie, in this case the NSW govt). Is the legislation proclaiming Sydney as the NSW capital - or is it just assumed by default because the govt has always been there??? --Merbabu 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Sydney should be a capital. Government institutions, such as the Electoral Commission and Bureau of Meteorology refer to Sydney as a capital city on their websites. The last page of an educational rolepay about the debate to the location of the federal capital refers to the capital as the "seat of government" (that's always been my understanding of the meaning of the term). Capital cities are also defined as part of the travel allowance rates fo the public service.John Dalton 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More info: From 1788 to 1823 NSW was a penal colony. In 1823 the British government established a New South Wales parliament. It was done using the New South Wales Act 1823 (UK). The NSW constitution was enacted in 1855. If a capital has been officially defined, it is possibly more likely around these dates, though the words "Sydney" or "capital" don't appear in either document.John Dalton 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've searched NSW's legislation for various combinations of "NSW", "new south wales", "capital", "capital city", "sydney" and so on. The most promising search was "bills containing the words Sydney and capital". That returned 32 hits, none of which seemed to have relevant titles. I'm leaning towards "capital" being an adjective not a legislated status. DFAT prominently refers to Sydney as the capital of NSW. Perhaps this link should be added to the article as a reference to back Sydney's claim to capital status?John Dalton 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Two better references to Sydney's capital city status[27][28]. It might be the case that it is the City of Sydney, the LGA, not the greater metro area which is NSW's official capital city. Thus the correct terminology for this article might be "Sydney contains the City of Sydney, the capital of New South Wales".John Dalton 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, if a "capital" is not officially defined (as, say, Canberra is), it is wherever the seat of government is. Thus, the "capital city" is the city where the seat of government is. Hmm I just realised that this doesn't really help. --Sumple (Talk) 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an entirely silly debate. Sydney is the undisputed capital of New South Wales. The City of Sydney is a local government area existing for the purposes of serving inner Sydney. Rebecca 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What Beck said.--cj | talk 05:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought until I started searching for sources. Could you please provide a source for your point of view Rebecca? I provided an authorative source for my edits (the Department of Finance and Administration). Do you know better than them? Saying "that's silly" or "it is obvious" is an academic cop out and would get you laughed out of any scholastic forum. It is a misconception to say that the metropolitan area of Sydney is the capital city of NSW. It (the subject of this article) isn't even a city. From the sources I have read, the facts are that the City of Sydney is the capital. The metropolitan area of Sydney encompasses multiple cities (Sydney, Parramatta, Liverpool,...). Thus this metro area contains the capital, but it is not the capital. All because the cities have grown to the point where there is no bush between them doesn't mean they have lost their identities. I ask you to either a) undo your reversion or b) provide a source more authorative than the one I provided to back up your reversion. Be careful that you are not overreacting to changes to the article since Jackp was on the scene. I await your response.John Dalton 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The source you've provided is not at all authoritive: it doesn't state in the slightest that the "City of Sydney" is the capital of New South Wales. Rather, the following statement could be taken to contradict your claim: "main local government entry points and the official tourism sites for the capital cities of Australia's state and territory governments." (emphasis added) I note also that Sydney has existed as a capital city longer than the City of Sydney has existed.--cj | talk 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its correct to read "City" as in "City of Sydney" to mean "city" in the normal sense of the word. Who thinks the "City of Blue Mountains" is a "city"? Hands up? I would say "city" refers to "city" in the sense of a large conurbation.

In terms of geographical area, population, or political hierarchy, the "City" as an administrative unit in the British and Australian context is more like a district/town in lay terms. --Sumple (Talk) 06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, hence another flaw in the argument that the City of Sydney is the capital. As you make mention, the "city" in this case is Sydney, while the "City of Sydney" is a corporation administering a district therein. --cj | talk 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Capital City Lord Mayors website suggests that City of Sydney is NSW's capital. There is little on the NSW government's websites to suggest that any city is NSW's capital though, unlike SA and WA which proclaim Adelaide and Perth as a "Capital City"--Mako 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I read "the main local government entry point" to apply "main" to the entry point, not to the government. Thus there is "a local government" for the capital, not multiple local govenments with Sydney being the main one. Local governments don't form a heirarchy as they all have equal status, so you can't talk about a "main local government". Yes, the City of Sydney came into being after the settlement did, but I would contend that at that the time the City of Sydney came into being the defined boundaries of the city were its geographical boundaries (need to find a source, as do you cj to prove the opposite). I guess the argument comes down to "does the capital city of NSW include the City of Sydney, the City of Parramatta, the City of Liverpool and so on?" It is a contradiction to call a metropolitan area, that includes multiple cities, a capital city. There is the possibility of two meanings to the word city: a governmental meaning and a 'popular' meaning. I contend that at the time of Sydney emerging as NSW's capital city the popular view of Sydney's boundaries and the governmental view coincided. Since than the 'popular' city has expanded, but has the governmental one? If a "capital city" is the one where a government sits, shouldn't the governmental definition be the relevant (and technically correct) one?

I don't think you can discard what I wrote is such an offhanded manner. There is a case to argue that the City of Sydney is the capital. Those of the opposite view should address the arguments above and provide sources to disprove the arguments. As I have written previously, it was only when looking for sources I began to think "hang on a minute". The lack of sources weakens Wikipedia. I'm not going to participate in an edit war, but unless you provide a source to back up your words and debunk my reasoning Wikipedia will be open to being dismissed by readers in the same way you dismiss me. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to back your argument with sources. John Dalton 06:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree (and I reject the "offhanded" characterisation); a reliable source has not yet been provided to corroborate your claim. I do hope that we won't need to delve to too deeply into semantics for this to be accepted, given the source isn't even explicit. I feel your interpretation of the statement is incorrect. Here, main is not used to refer to an entry point – it would have read "the main entry points for the local governments" otherwise – but to the LGAs, in the same way a common person considers a city in a metropolitan context and yet calls its centre "the City". This brings us again to differring understandings of "city". I don't see how it is a contradiction to call a metropolitan area a capital city, unless you are perceive "city" in a distorted North American sense. It's worthwhile to point out, as Randwicked abovementions, that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, not the City of Westminster. The CCCLM source Mako links to is a little more reliable, but it is still ambigious at best: I can interpret it in at least three different ways. I do, of course, agree with your comment that a lack sources is a Bad Thing and I even concede that there is a case to be made. It just has not yet been made, and the burden remains with its proponents.--cj | talk 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources in order of reliability

Here's a fun game with a serious message about the need for sources. Please feel free to add to these lists or move items around!  :-) John Dalton 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

City of Sydney-NSW Capital (city??)

• Council of Capital City Lord Mayors

Sydney Metro area-NSW Capital (city??)

• Geographic Names Board of NSW John Dalton 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - sinking my own ship here!

Ambiguous

• australia.gov.au
• DFAT
• Australian Bureau of Meterology web site
• Australian Electoral Commission web site

Okay I've been converted. The Geographic Names Board of NSW GNB of NSW is hard to beat. According to them: "It is the capital of New South Wales. The inner city area is located on the southern shores of Port Jackson, but the city extends to the north, south and west for many km." The question remains, just how far is "many km"? To answer this, look at the topgraphic map reference given for "Sydney": Parramatta River. This is smack in the middle of the metro area of Sydney and doesn't include the "City of Sydney". Conclusion: The capital of NSW is some fuzzy blob called "Sydney" which is centred on Parramatta.

I withdraw the above arguments. The capital (note, not capital city) of NSW is not the City od Sydney. It is "Sydney". I do not withdraw my comments about the need for sources for every bit of information in the article (even the 'obvious stuff').John Dalton 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a complete sidetrack - the above sources are not "ambiguous", they are simply using the normal use of the idea of a city. We have separate articles for the adminstrative division the "City of Sydney", and for the city Sydney according to normal understanding. The idea of a capital city applies to the normal notion of a city, not administrative divisions. Otherwise, you would be arguing not only that the capital of the UK is Westminster, but also that the capital of Australia is not Canberra, but the ACT. A capital city is a city which is a capital, so the distinction is meaningless. JPD (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I took them to be ambiguous in that they didn't establish which Sydney, the LGA (aka city) or the metro area (aka city), was the capital. They were not ambiguous about establishing that a city called "Sydney" is the capital. I do not dispute that Sydney is the capital, I just wanted to be sure which use of the word city applied to the capital. Both uses are "normal".John Dalton 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Other state capitals

What about the cities (LGUs) of Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne then? Are they the actual state capitals? — Instantnood 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. You'll have to ask them. John Dalton 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Next battle...Oldest city??

Cue evil laugh... I lost that battle, but I will fight again... (though wikipedia as a whole won in that we got a good source out of it)

Moving onto the next 'obvious statement': "The city is Australia's oldest city...". I challenge someone provide a source for this. To take the contrary position...

What is meant by "first city" Does the article really mean to say "first permanent settlement"? City is generally defined by "size, population density, importance, or legal status" (to quote wikipedia). On which of these is Sydney claiming to be Australia's "first city" in 1788? (1788 is mentioned in the next breath implying that in 1788 Sydney was Australia's first city.)

If "first permanent settlement", there are other contenders for Australia's "first city". It is possible that permanent aboriginal settlements exceeded the scope of the original Sydney "city". For example, there was a permanant aboriginal settlement at Lake Condah in Victoria [29][30][31]. Was this Australia's "first city"? To quote the DEH website: "it contains the remains of a complex system of natural and artificially created wetlands, channels, the stone bases of weirs and stone fish traps that were used by Gunditj Mara people to grow and harvest eels and fish (Builth 2002, 2003). The remains of the channels, weirs and fishtraps are hundreds and probably thousands of years old."... "stone huts clustered into villages of between two and sixteen huts". This sounds more major than Sydney 1788. Water catchments, farms, buildings,...perhaps even qualifying as a "city" (as used in the statement from the article)?

I suggest that "The city is Australia's oldest city..." becomes "The city is Australia's first European settlement...". Of course whoever makes this change must provide a reference to back up this 'obvious' fact. (Just in case it is as obvious as the fact that Sydney was Australia's first city.) John Dalton 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"city" or "City"? I would suggest that Sydney is Australia's oldest City by legal status (whatever year it was incorporated... it's in the article if memory serves me right).

In relation to Aboriginal settlements, I would suggest that even if any of them were bigger than Sydney in 1788, that does not mean that they were *cities*. In fact, Sydney in 1788 was by no means a city. --Sumple (Talk) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case the article is wrong to say "The city is Australia's oldest city, established in 1788..." It wasn't established as a city in 1788. The article should read something like: "Established in 1788 at Sydney Cove by Arthur Phillip who led the First Fleet from Britain, Sydney grew to become Australia's oldest city." You would need then to provide a source to go with that, just in case people from Melbourne, Adelaide or even Bendigo objected. Gold rushes tend to build cities quickly. We also need an objective definition of city (with reference) as different people seem to have a different definition of city (see previous argument). Two sources are needed: one to establish the criteria to call something a city and a second to establish that Sydney was the first in Australia to satisfy that criteria.John Dalton 09:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Sydney is the oldest city on the first three counts. I doubt the Gunditj Mara settlement was larger in populace than the original Sydney. As an aside, the City of Adelaide was incorporated two years prior to the City of Sydney.--cj | talk 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is your source cj[32]. Three out of four isn't good enough. It leaves "first city" as an empty statement. The remaining criteria are quite subjective and potentially weaker than a measurable legal incorporation.

Size: how big does a population have to be to be to be a city? Was Sydney the first to reach this?

Population density. How dense does population have to be to be a city? Was Sydney first there?

Importance. How is something like that to be judged?

Then there is the fact that I randomly chose wikipedia as something that would hopefully be consistent with itself. Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a source. Sydney really should reference whatever source (if any?) wikipedia's city article drew its criteria from. My point is if we are going to say "first city" we need a reference to establish the criteria for a city. John Dalton 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt the Gunditj Mara settlement was larger in populace than the original Sydney. " Are sure though? There were multiple villages of 2-16 huts. That's potentially quite a few people (there were 1373 confirmed on the first fleet according to wikipedia). I have to provide references to say Sydney isn't Australia's oldest city. You need to provide references to say it is. Without a reference it should just not be in the article. (The article takes neither position.) "I was here first" (ie. it's already in the article) isn't an argument. It's not up to me to show why it should be removed. It's up to you to show why it should stay. If I wanted to put "Sydney isn't Australia's oldest city" into the article then the onus would be on me. John Dalton 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend argue any which way. I have no preference for whether it stays or goes. --cj | talk 10:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The clear intended meaning of the sentence is that of Australia's cities, Sydney is the one with the earliest origins. I think this is worth including, but it may be useful to reword it so there is less room for misunderstanding. JPD (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"...of Australia's cities, Sydney is the one with the earliest origins." That makes sense to me in the context of the article.

I notice that the article now says: "The city was established in 1788 at Sydney Cove by Arthur Phillip who led the First Fleet from Britain." I think there is still ambiguity in the use of the word "city" in that what was established in 1788 was not a city. It also leaves open the question of what is means to establish a city. How about "The city has its origins in 1788 at Sydney Cove by Arthur Phillip who led the First Fleet from Britain." (not 100% happy with that myself) or perhaps "Sydney was established in 1788 at Sydney Cove by Arthur Phillip who led the First Fleet from Britain?" In the second case the article should probably be reworded to:

"Sydney (pronounced /ˈsɪd.niː/) is the most populous city in Australia with a metropolitan area population of over four million people. It is located in and is the state capital of New South Wales.[1]"

"Sydney was established in 1788 at Sydney Cove by Arthur Phillip who led the First Fleet from Britain.{citation needed}"

(Changes emphasised)

We should also lift a reference from the First Fleet article to support the statements about Arthur Philip, the first fleet and the date. (On the assumption that articles are supposed to be self contained.)

As the proposer of this change, if there is support for it, I think a seconder should step forward and be the one to actually make the change to the article. John Dalton 11:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No disrepect, but "...of Australia's cities, Sydney is the one with the earliest origins" sounds cumbersome. How about, "The first European settlement in Australia, Sydney was founded in 1788 ..." which would include the notable "first"ness (which does not appear to be included in the current version).

Or would that just cause a further argument about those two Dutch guys who got banished in Western Australian and whether that counts as a "settlement"... --Sumple (Talk) 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

None taken. Constructive criticism is the name of the game. I like your wording better than mine. I voet the article includes your text. (do it!) No, I'm not going to argue any further. (There are plenty more things to argue about further down!) John Dalton 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sumple (Talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming this requires a change to the article (so relax Sumple! :-) but an interesting side note is the wreck of the Zuytdorp (or Zuiddorp) on the WA coastline in 1712 [33] [34] [35]. There were 286 people on board, all of whom were presumed dead. In 1927 evidence of at least one campsite was found. Since then the wreck has been found near the campsite and evidence of beacon fires, lit as distress signals. It is still an open question as to what happened to the people. Some possibilities are that they attempted to leave in boats, they perished on the shore or perhaps became part of the aboriginal population (no conclusive genetic evidence yet). It's intriguing (and romantic) to think that there might have been a sizeable population of Europeans living in Australia 60 years before the first fleet! John Dalton 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia:Verifiability is not to provide an inline citation for every statement. It makes the text difficult to read and doesn't add much if the sources are not reliable anyway. Further there is not dispute that Australia was settled by Europeans in 1788 and on that site the first city or whatever you want to call it was established, chanage the text to reflect that if you think it is currently misleading.--Peta 12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read that page and it says in a prominent box:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

This says that a source should be provided for everything. If it impacts source readability that is a problem with mediawiki. Should the quality of wikipedia suffer because of the tools we use? Maybe mediawiki should be modified to provide syntax highlighting, or some other mechanism to make text with embedded sources easier to read? Until that day, do we do the best with what we have or compromise wikipedia?John Dalton 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Peta was trying to make is that it is frivolous to footnote each and every little statement. Rather, it is more appropriate to cite sources when asserting something that may be controversial or where external reference is required to establish credibility.--cj | talk 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is particularly unnecessary to give a footnote for statements in the lead section that are given more attention in later parts of the article. JPD (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see JPD's point, but how do we track the verifiability of statements made in the lead? It seems a contadiction that some of the most prominent statements (in the lead) can only be verified indirectly. In answer to cj, surely littleness and controversy vary according to the audience? If I we are writing for a specialist audience we might be able to have a longer list of prerequisite knowledge. The less experienced the audience, the less can be taken as assumed or not controversial. The addition of sources gave some food for thought on one supposedly obvious point and showed a second to be inaccurate (Is Sydney really an older city than Adelaide?). Is a source for everything (given recent experience) a bad thing? Surely sources are a way to debunk those who say wikipedia is not a reliable source? John Dalton 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out a suggestion I have made on the mediawiki site[36], in case anyone here is interested in contributing to improving wikipedia's referencing system (to improve readability).John Dalton 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour != Port Jackson

I hope you don't mind this blitzkrieg, but hopefully I'm raising valid points.

Back to the Geographic Names Board for this one.

Port Jackson and Sydney Harbour are different things and the terms cannot be interchanged as the article says: "Built around Port Jackson (more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)". Port Jackson is all the water inside North Head and South Head. It has three arms: North Harbour, Middle Harbour and Sydney Harbour[1]. Sydney Harbour is the southern part of Port jackson. It excludes Middle Harbour, North Harbour and the Parramatta River[2]. It is incorrect to say that Port Jackson can be called Sydney Harbour. I've provided references ready to go below. The explanation of exactly which water is covered by each name is at the bottom of each page. I suggest that "(more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)" be deleted, or the difference explained if the article must keep a reference to "Sydney Harbour".John Dalton 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] Geographical Name Register Extract for Port Jackson, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)

[2] Geographical Name Register Extract for Sydney Harbour, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)

I changed the wording so that it is accurate, but I am not sure that it reads that well. On a sidetrack, the GNB references don't actually seem to suggest that either Port Jackson or Sydney Harbour exclude Parramatta River. JPD (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"From its origins on the shores of Sydney Harbour the city of Sydney, sometimes called the "Harbour City"{cite}, has expanded to surround Port Jackson."

John Dalton 21:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloppiness on my part with the Parramatta River claim. I assumed the two lines mentioned were across the upstream and downstream boundaries of Sydney Harbour but didn't verrify that as I only had a street directory to hand (it's hard work trawling across a dozen different maps trying to fing landmarks!). Thinking about it my assumption was probably wrong. Given that Sydney Harbour includes the sound, Parramatta River is probably part of Sydney Harbour and the two lines are across the entrances to Middle and North Harbour. That needs to be verified on a map and the map added as a reference. John Dalton 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. "Cannae Point to Dobroyd Head" is a line across the mouth of North Harbour. "Grotto Point, thence along an imaginary line 700 metres W by S distant" is a line across the mouth of Middle Harbour. Parramatta River is included in Sydney Harbour. This info (along with its references) needs to find its way into the Sydney Harbour and Port Jackson articles. If this article is going to mention both Port Jackson and Sydney Harbour it needs a reference to prevent the the confusion from reoccuring. John Dalton 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• While the two terms might not be exactly the same thing, could there be two maeaningful articles or is it better to have one? I think Content forking should be avoided if possible.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe a "Port Jackson" article, with up to three subsections "Sydney Harbour", "Middle Harbour" and "North Harbour" containing things specific to that part of water? Yes, there would be an awful lot of overlap between a "Port Jackson" and "Sydney Harbour" article. If the subsections grew too large that would be the time to spin off separate articles. John Dalton 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It may well be true that Sydney Harbour is technically not all of Port Jackson - but it is also correct to say that Port Jackson is also "known" Sydney Habour (even if it is actually incorrect). Thus, i don't see what is wrong with saying "PJ is also known as Syd Harbour". The latest edit is really silly - being specific if fine, but not in the opening sentences if it means tripping up on ourselves. I agree with J Daltons suggestion to divide the Port Jackson article into 3 sections - that's the place to nit pick - but not in the first sentences of Sydney. --Merbabu 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim "Port Jackson is also known as Sydney Harbour" is wrong and has no factual basis. It is provable that this is not the official situation (refs were provided previously), so the claim must be based on personal experience. Personal experience counts as original research and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Alternatively, can you provided references to an objective survey of colloquial names for Port Jackson? (A poll among editors of this article is also original research.) As a Sydneysider for over 35 years I am willing to state that few, if anyone I know, calls "Port Jackson" "Sydney Harbour". In my experience the area near the Opera House is sometimes called "Sydney Harbour", Middle Harbour gets called "Middle harbour" and North Harbour is often called "Manly". The whole lot (Port Jackson) gets called "The Harbour". I wouldn't be prepared to add it to the article though unless it could be backed with decent references.

We can't claim that "Sydney Harbour" and "The Harbour" is a trivial difference which can be ignored. One is consistent ("The Harbour" includes Middle, North and Sydney harbours) the other is a contradiction ("Sydney Harbour" is bigger than Sydney Harbour"). I've heard and seen Sydney called "The Harbour City", but never "The Sydney Harbour City". The "Sydney Harbour Bridge" is called that because it really does span Sydney Harbour. When most people talk about Sydney Harbour they really do mean the area near the opera house and bridge. John Dalton 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Google experiment to test usage of names for the area around the spit:

spit "the harbour" = 150,000 hits;

spit "sydney harbour" = 51,200 hits.

John Dalton 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Sydney

I am looking for a consensus with regard to these two categories: Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales & Category:Shopping centres in Sydney.(see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney#scope for previous entries). I have looked through this it seems to be an old chestnut. Does the PROJECT have a consensus on what is in Sydney for the purpose of Wikipedia? PROPOSAL: For the purpose of articles related on Wikipedia, if the suburb is included on List of Sydney suburbs then it is IN SYDNEY for the purposes of classifying articles.

Strong Agree --Garrie 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, which seems to belong at the Wikiproject talk page. The way in which it directly affects this article is that although most of the article's context clearly uses this sort of definition of Sydney, the stats are for the "Sydney Statistical Division", which is much bigger, including Gosford/Wyong and the Blue Mountains. I don't think the "Sydney Statistical Division" was ever intended to match a normal notion of Sydney, and think we should find more specific stats, but noone seems to agree/care. JPD (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The stas are the problem, the ABS has all the big metro areas as statistical divisions - and they are the data that is quoted everywhere. The approach on most Australian city articles has been to go with the metro area due in part to the usefulness of the stats. The differnce could be explained in the geography seciton of the article.--Peta 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sydney was founded in 1788???

I think that opening paragraph still needs work. When was Sydney actually founded as a city? Ie, it wasn't Sydney that was proclaimed in 1788 but NSW. When did the name "Sydney" come into use, both colloquially and officially? In the meantime, i suggest "Sydney was established" rather than "Sydney was founded" - sounds less official. --Merbabu 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From my look through the NAA last night, Sydney doesn't seem to have gotten letters patent etc that towns founded later got. Someone at the state library of NSW might be able to confirm or deny this. However I think it is totally accurate to say Sydney was founded in 1788 - but established is ok too.--Peta 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Founded as a settlement, and I think that's good enough. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the article is about "Sydney", but it is never precisely defined what Sydney is. As a result everyone is reading the words and (correctly) getting a different meaning out of them. Sydney is vaguely defined to be a "city", but what's that? Is Sydney the city a body of people, a geographic area, a legal entity, a mix of these, something else? I suspect each person in thsi discussion would pick a different thing from the list just given (or a new thing altogether).John Dalton 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A city is an urban area of some sort. The people are obviously a significant part of this, and there may be a legal entity in there somewhere, but I think it is clear that there is not in this case. I think the issue here is not with the word "city", but how we understand "established" and "founded". I am fine with either one. JPD (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, JPD. For me "founded" seems more official - like someone proclaimed it at a ceremony and laid a stone or legislated. "Established" seems to be a more haphazard process which is my understanding of Sydney's very early history. My understanding is also that the colony of NSW was proclaimed officially, but not Sydney - or not until much later anyway, not in 1788. But i am happy to be corrected on each of these if someone provides a convincing arguement. --Merbabu 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Parks

I've reverted a major edit to Parks in Sydney by Jfpearce that was a blatant copy from some of Jackp's favourite sources. Can someone else keep an eye on this user's activity. --Steve 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw his contrbutions - same sort pages that jackp used to edit. --Merbabu 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Population

The intro paragraph states a population of over four million, but a recent edit has the urban area with a population of 3,455,110 at the 2001 census. I assume the intro is wrong? --Steve 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an artefact of the article failing to define its subject. Consequently different people have a different view of just how big this nebulous Sydney is, and how many people live in it. John Dalton 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To some extent John is right, but I think the article is actually quite clear. The intro says the metropolitan area population is over 4M, and later it says that the urban area population was 3,455,110 in 2001. It is normal for a city to have an urban area and a metropolitan area with different populations. JPD (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any difference between urban and metropolitan in the context of Sydney? Looking up a dictionary yields the following:

urban

1. Of, relating to, or located in a city.

2. Characteristic of the city or city life.

metropolitan

1a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a major city: crowded metropolitan streets; a metropolitan newspaper.

1b. Of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns: the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area; a metropolitan county.

2. Of, relating to, or constituting the home territory of an imperial or colonial state.

3. Of or relating to an ecclesiastical metropolitan.

The pocket Oxford dictionary is similar: urban=of a city; metropolitan=of a chief city.

As I read it, these definitions say that a metropolitan area is the urban area of a large city, so for a large city urban and metropolian are the same thing. Consequently Sydney's urban population and metro population are one and the same thing. I genuinely am interested to have the difference between Sydney's "urban area" and "metropolitan area" in case there is something I don't understand..John Dalton 06:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're better off reading the Wikipedia articles on Metropolitan area and Urban area. The phrase has a meaning you won't get by looking up each word in a dictionary. In the context of this article, metropolitan area refers to the Sydney Statistical Division, whereas urban area refers to the Sydney Urban Centre, both of which are defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, just to quote urban area, "Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city". In this case, the Sydney Statistical Division includes the Central Coast, the towns of the Blue Mountains, and other towns like Richmond, Windsor, Picton etc. that are not physically part of Sydney's urban area but still count in its population. - ҉ Randwicked ҉

I went to the "urban area" article and checked the quote you provided. I thought I would check whatever source it came from. It turns out the statement is unsourced. How do I know that its author knows what he or she is talking about? A two word phrase hardly seems complicated enough to evade a dictionary definition, though the phrases might also be technical jargon in the field of demographics? In that case the Sydney article should provide a refererence to define the specialist meaning. It seems reasonable that an article should self contained, in that it can be fully comprehended by a reader with access to the sources and a standard dictionary.

I'm not sure where the association between "statistical division" and metro area come from. One is a specific definition invented by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (as they must since the first step in any good measurement is to define the quantity to be measured.) Does the ABS equate "metro area" and "statistical divison", as the geography section of this article currently does? I think it is incorrect for the "Metropolitan area" article to make an unsourced connection between statistical divisions and metroploitan areas and it is wrong for us to accept the "Metropolitan area" area article without asking it to prove its credentials.

Looking into things further the "statistical division" definition the ABS uses [37] [38] is defined in a document "1216.0 - Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) - 2001" [39]. This is a 30MB pdf file [40] Pages 14 and 15 say:

Statistical Division (SD)     The SD is a general purpose spatial unit and is the largest and most
                              stable spatial unit within each S/T in the Main Structure.
                                
                               SDs consist of one or more SSDs. In aggregate, they cover Australia (as
                               defined in Chapter 1, p. 4) without gaps or overlaps. SDs aggregate to
                               form S/Ts (see diagram 3, Chapter 1, p. 3).
                               
                               In this edition of the ASGC, there are 66 SDs in Australia including one
                               SD for the three Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and Cocos
                               (Keeling) Islands.

       Delimitation of SDs     The current basis for delimiting SDs was determined by the 31st and
                               33rd Conferences of Statisticians of Australia in 1969 and 1973. The
                               delimitation criteria are as follows:

                               * SDs should ideally be delimited on the basis of socioeconomic criteria
                                  and should, where possible, embrace contiguous whole local
                                  government areas.

                              *   SD boundaries so delimited should be changed only at infrequent
                                  intervals, for example, at periods of 15–20 years.

                              *   SD boundaries should be determined in time for use in the next
                                  Population Census if practicable.

                              *   A Capital City SD (currently one in each capital city) should be
                                  defined, after consultation with planners, to contain the anticipated
                                  development of the city for a period of at least 20 years. This fixed
                                  SD boundary — as distinct from the moving urban centre
                                  boundary — delimits an area which is stable for general statistical
                                  purposes. It represents the city in a wider sense. This delimitation
                                  procedure cannot be applied to the separate urban centres within a
                                  Capital City SD.

                               *  SDs outside a capital city should be defined as a relatively
                                  homogeneous region characterised by identifiable social and economic
                                  links between the inhabitants and between the economic units within
                                  the region, under the unifying influence of one or more major towns
                                  or cities.

                              More specifically, the SDs within the individual S/T have been delimited
                              as follows:

                              *   In New South Wales, SDs correspond to proclaimed Government
                                  Regions with the exception that North Coast Region consists of the
                                  SDs of Richmond-Tweed and Mid-North Coast. These Regions were
                                  delimited to maximize the degree of socioeconomic interactions within
                                  each Region. Information on transport patterns, telephone traffic
                                  between major cities and towns, retail shopping, fresh goods
                                  marketing, provincial newspaper circulation areas and coverage of
                                  principal radio stations were all used in delimiting these boundaries.

                              *   In Victoria, the SDs prior to 1995 generally corresponded to State
                                  Planning Regions adopted by the Victorian Government in October
                                  1981. However, following the restructuring of local government in
                                  that State during 1994 and 1995, the SDs were redefined to accord
                                  with the general considerations and criteria outlined above.

                              *   In Queensland, formal State Planning Regions have been abolished.
                                  SDs are used on an informal basis for State Government planning
                                  purposes where relevant. SD delimitation follows the general criteria
                                  outlined above.

                              *   In South Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the
                                  Committee on Uniform Regional Boundaries for Government
                                  Departments (CURB), were adopted by the South Australia
                                  Government in 1976. CURB Regions were based on such factors as:
                                  population density and distribution, socioeconomic characteristics,
                                  political boundaries, government service areas, newspaper circulation,
                                  retail trading patterns, etc. Prior to 1998, South Australian SDs did not
                                  always correspond to CURB Regions but they always aggregated to
                                  these Regions. However, following the restructuring of local
                                  government in South Australia in 1996 and 1997, the SDs were
                                  redefined to accord with the general considerations and criteria
                                  outlined above.

                              *   In Western Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the State
                                  Statistical Coordination Committee, were adopted by the Western
                                  Australia Government in January 1976. SDs in Western Australia
                                  correspond to these Regions. The Perth Metropolitan Region is
                                  delimited to be consistent with the overall concepts and planning of
                                  Perth and to take into account LGA and CD boundaries. Rural Regions
                                  on the other hand are delimited based on the socioeconomic interest
                                  of the community; the character of natural resource; the distribution
                                  of population and industries; town size; road and railway systems; and
                                  production and marketing practices.

                              *   In Tasmania, SD delimitation follows the general considerations and
                                  criteria outlined above. They are considered satisfactory for the
                                  purpose of State Government planning.

                              *   In the Northern Territory, SDs are based on Territory Government
                                  Administrative Regions, and are consistent with the general
                                  considerations and criteria for their delimitation described above.

                              *   In the Australian Capital Territory, SD delimitation follows the general
                                  considerations and criteria outlined above.

                              *   In the Other Territories, the SD has been delimited to represent the
                                  aggregated area of the Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and
                                  Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Apologies for the long quote, but it might save a 30MB download for some.

To summarise the above. The ABS distiguishes between "urban area" and a "statistical division" (SD). For each capital city its statistical division encloses the urban area with enough room around the edges to allow for around 20 years growth. The intention is that a SD should a) always enclose the urban area, and b) be stable for around 20 years. Think of the urban area expanding continuously and the SD expanding in jumps every time the urban area touches it. As defined by a dictionary, the ABS considers urban area and metro area to be the same thing for a large city (in that they seem to use the terms interchangeably, especially in relation to Perth and don't define metro or urban to be different from the dictionary). The metro area and a statistical divison are not the same thing in that the SD encloses the metro (or urban) area.

I agree with your explanation Randwicked, but I disagree with your terminology and refute your statement "metropolitan area refers to the Sydney Statistical Division". Fixing the article is as simple as being careful not to confuse metro/urban with "statistical division". John Dalton 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems then that we should refer to it as the Sydney SD, not as a 'metro area' as that term doesn't seem to be favoured by the ABS and there doesn't appear to be a source for Wikipedia's considering the two equivalent. Fair enough. What population then should head this article? I think it should be the urban centre figure, as most residents wouldn't consider everything in the SSD part of Sydney (like I said, it includes the Central Coast etc.). - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Two word phrases like "urban area" or "metropolitan area" usually do have a more technical meaning than what you find looking up each word in a dictionary. I don't see any signs that the ABS considers the metro area to be the same as the urban area, or that they use the terms interchangeably. However, I agree with the main point that we need a source for the notion that the SD is the metropolitan area. The question of which population to head the article with is another matter. I used to think we should definitely use a smaller area, but metropolitan area is correct in stating that the SD figures are the most quoted figures for the population of Sydney, etc. JPD (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The ABS publication "2032.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Australia in Profile -- A Regional Analysis, 2001" [41] might be of interest to anyone writing about population figures. This gives the statistical district figure of 4,128,200 as at 30 June 2001. The figure 3,455,110 for Sydney's "urban centre" comes from the publication "2016.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Selected Characteristics for Urban Centres, Australia, 2001" [42] The definition of "urban centre" is on page 64 under the glossary entry for "Geographic areas". In turn this definition refers to Chapter 6, and more specifically pages 29 and 30, of publication 1216.0 refered to previously.

The raw census data is collected into small units called a "census district" (CD). A census district is the smallest area for which census data is collated (page 7 of publication 1216.0) and is covered by a single census collector.

The population of a statistical division is the sum of all census districts within it.

The "Urban centre" is an attempt to track the continuously moving urban boundary, which is ideally contained within the boundaries of the statistical division. In particular the "urban centre" is a snapshot, valid only at the time of the census, between each census the "urban centre" is not defined. An urban centre is declared where ever there is a clump of CDs with a population of 1000 or more. The boundary of the urban centre is found by recursively "growing" the area according to criteria such as a) touching another urban CD and a population of 200/km^2; b) surrounded by urban CDs; and so on. Hopefully you get the picture, but see the publication fo rth efull list of criteria. In summary, the Urban centre is an attempt to take a snapshot of the edge of a population based on population density, but with a few tweeks to take accound of things such as industrial areas which have low population density but are still part of a city. The population of an urban centre is the sum of its component CDs.

The Sydney article needs to provide the reader with some sense of what the two different figures mean. I don't think it currently does that. It's a pity there is resistance to a bunch of the above references finding their way into the article. With them the article's population figures would be unassailable (especially by featured article reviewers) and future ambiguity could be avoided. Anyone got the time to expand on the above and write an article on the ABS and its methods?

This is an opportunity for the article to formally define what is meant by "Sydney" and so define the scope of the article. The most intuitive definition seems to be the ABS's measured "urban centre" for Sydney. Is an exact map of Sydney's urban centre available? It has the disadvantage that it will always be a retrospective definition, but is it the best we have? (short of having a ring of people camped around Sydney with GPS units and real time data collection :-) John Dalton 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The ABS website will display maps of Urban Centres if you search for small area statistics. Here is the Sydney map: [43]. Find others using this search tool: [1]. (server changed 27 Jun 2007) - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, John. A lot of what you have written is quoting from ABS documents which you had already linked to. Why do you think there is resistance to including those references? The figures in the article should definitely be clear about what they are referring to, but apart from the infobox, they already said things like "urban area" or "metropolitan area". The "metroplitan area" description was quite clear, just unsourced and possibly wrong. I think it is much better to give accurate descriptions of this sort for all the relevant figures, rather than decide on one particular definition of Sydney as the scope of the article. JPD (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Infobox Australian City about which figures (Statistical District or Urban Centre) are more appropriate for the infoboxes. Hopefully some more people will see it there. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. Quoth the ABS: " Metropolitan is a term often used by different people to mean different things. It was defined in the Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) Classification (See Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA)) as being the Statistical Subdivisions containing Major Urban Centres. While the ABS has not defined the term "Metropolitan" in its own geography it is often interpreted as the Capital City Statistical Division in each State/Territory with Ex-metropolitan being the remainder of the State/Territory." There you go. So a Metropolitan area is either an SSD containing a major urban centre (those with pops of 100,000 or more), or a capital city Statistical Division. Jeez, even THEY can't make up their f**king minds. I think this is an indication we can use the more pedestrian-friendly term 'Metropolitan Area' in this article though. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, no wonder I was confused which shopping centres are in Sydney and which ones are in New South Wales... Garrie 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A picture in the infobox?

Wouldn't it look better if the picture of the Sydney skyline and Opera House from Sydney Harbour if it was in the infobox above or under the map with a caption below it. I think it would look pretty good in there!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill-bill-93 (talk • contribs) aka Jackp

Hit the road Jackp Merbabu 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

move page?

Why isn't the article title Sydney, New South Wales? The article for every other city/town in Australia except for some of the state capitals includes the state name, and those few shoudl be changed as well. Ohwell32 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no need for the disambiguation. Sydney is a major city in the world and there are no other "Sydney" articles that rank up against Sydney the city. Towns hve the "New South Wales" part for the disambiguation reason. --mdmanser 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what mdmanser said, there is an article naming convention for cities which does not require the use of the city, state format for Asutralian capitals (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Australia). The lack of disambiguation for the Sydney article is in keeping with the convention. Just to add -- the convention does not require disambiguation in article names for most cities in the world, unless there is a conflict with a city of the same name (and one city cannot claim to be the most significant place sharing the name). The U.S. is the major exception, where the city, state format is required for all cities (except NYC and Chicago). Skeezix1000 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, everyone including the georaphically challanged knows Sydney is in Australia. It is world famous, and there is no need for it to be moved to Sydney, NSW. Does Toronto have one, does London, Tokyo, Paris, NYC, Milan...NO, because everyone knows where they are. Plus, if Sydney wasn't the article the person was looking for there is a disambiguation link at the top.

The only six cities excepted are Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide. Perth and Darwin lead to disambiguation pages (Perth, Scotland and Charles Darwin) Harryboyles 07:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal, Sydney needs one

So many cities have one now, and I was wondering whether Sydney will ever get the portal treatment on Wikipedia? Someone before claimed that it wouldn’t be sufficient enough because there are hardly any articles that have something to do with the city on Wikipedia, but that is just bias. There are a total of 58 articles about places in the city, and 43 about regions in the city. Toronto has a portal and there are only 57 related to Toronto…so what is this garbage about not enough pages related to the city?? So far will the Sydney articles be improved any time soon, when they are will someone begin to work on one??

Hit the road Jackp --Merbabu 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)